By witness they mean an independent person not associated with the cyclist or the lorry driver.

RIP and my thoughts go out to the guys friends and family.

Absolutely right. When investigating a road fatality the police are right to get as much information as they can. The other comments on here lambasting the police for not just taking one statement from a fellow cyclict and then proceeding with that are just comical.

They want witnesses to build a case. They want the case to be airtight. Corroborating witnesses, independent of those involved are good evidence on which to obtain a conviction.

If they just went in to court with a statement from a fellow cyclist the defence could and would claim that the witness had an axe to grind.

Put it like this instead. Would the people that think they should just take the other cyclists word for what happened, also be happy if it was the lorry driver who had a mate in the cab and the mate swore blind the cyclist was the one at fault for some reason and the police just dropped the case because they had a witness that said it was the cyclists fault?

I hope the driver gets prison. You either do a safe overtake or you don't, a safe overtake doesn't result in someone dieing.

I don't know the facts here. I don't know the road, I don't know if any other vehicles were involved in any way or what the lorry was overtaking at what speed or where the cyclists were immediately before and then during the incident whether they were on the road already or came on to the road during, or were crossing the road.

Do you think maybe we ought to find out exactly what happened before we send anyone to jail or is that just a bit old fashioned?

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

I hope the driver gets prison. You either do a safe overtake or you don't, a safe overtake doesn't result in someone dieing.

I don't know the facts here. I don't know the road, I don't know if any other vehicles were involved in any way or what the lorry was overtaking at what speed or where the cyclists were immediately before and then during the incident whether they were on the road already or came on to the road during, or were crossing the road.

Do you think maybe we ought to find out exactly what happened before we send anyone to jail or is that just a bit old fashioned?

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

Do you really think that kie was suggesting otherwise? He was merely articulating what I suspect that many of us feel absolute disbelief that a cyclist was killed by a lorry which was allegedly over taking and the cyclist died as a result. Kie was merely expressing a hope that the driver receives a prison sentence which tbh is perfectly reasonable if found guilty of a serious driving offence which has resulted in some one being killed. We don't need your rant suggesting or assuming that Kie meant we dispense with the judicial process and just throw the driver in prison!

I hope the driver gets prison. You either do a safe overtake or you don't, a safe overtake doesn't result in someone dieing.

I don't know the facts here. I don't know the road, I don't know if any other vehicles were involved in any way or what the lorry was overtaking at what speed or where the cyclists were immediately before and then during the incident whether they were on the road already or came on to the road during, or were crossing the road.

Do you think maybe we ought to find out exactly what happened before we send anyone to jail or is that just a bit old fashioned?

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

Unfortunately we know fine what will happen. The police will find some version of the truth, the CPS will go for a minimal charge, and the judge will let him off with a mildly tapped wrist.

Surely better would be to recognise that driving is a privilege, and say that if you kill someone with a motor vehicle then, unless you can unequivocally prove your lack of fault you lose that privilege; then deal with the issue of punishment separately.

There are all sorts of questions to be asked, relating to how this happened, and I'd guess that's why the police want unconnected witnesses: is the lorry UK or foreign (ie. left or right hand steering)? Did the lorry successfully overtake the first cyclist but then hit the second one? Did he run into the first (back) one on his run-up to overtake? Did he massively misjudge things and try to squeeze back in between them? Did he cut it short as he tried to come into the lane?

Unfortunately, all have led to the death of this cyclist, but - not in any way to defend the lorry driver - you can see how there are so many different scenarios, and how they put a different spin in events...

I hope the driver gets prison. You either do a safe overtake or you don't, a safe overtake doesn't result in someone dieing.

I don't know the facts here. I don't know the road, I don't know if any other vehicles were involved in any way or what the lorry was overtaking at what speed or where the cyclists were immediately before and then during the incident whether they were on the road already or came on to the road during, or were crossing the road.

Do you think maybe we ought to find out exactly what happened before we send anyone to jail or is that just a bit old fashioned?

Do you really think that kie was suggesting otherwise?

He was merely articulating what I suspect that many of us feel absolute disbelief that a cyclist was killed by a lorry which was allegedly over taking and the cyclist died as a result. Kie was merely expressing a hope that the driver receives a prison sentence which tbh is perfectly reasonable if found guilty of a serious driving offence which has resulted in some one being killed.

We don't need your rant suggesting or assuming that Kie meant we dispense with the judicial process and just throw the driver in prison!

"Do you really think that kie was suggesting otherwise?"

Well that's what he did suggest. No caveats or ifs or buts about it. It was so blatent and clear it exactly reminded me of the Alice in Wonderland quote about sentence first verdict afterwards.

"Kie was merely expressing a hope that the driver receives a prison sentence which tbh is perfectly reasonable if found guilty of a serious driving offence which has resulted in some one being killed."

Yep and the small but important word there is "IF".

I just read what people write. If they mean something else by it and you two are both using "the force" to deduce meaning then I am unfortunately embarassed in that department so I am left only with the words.

As a suggestion, because I may not be alone in being un-connected with "the force" that you guys are using, would it be a good idea you think if when people had caveats they just wrote them down in their post. That would make it easier on the rest of us not using ESP.

I hope the driver gets prison. You either do a safe overtake or you don't, a safe overtake doesn't result in someone dieing.

I don't know the facts here. I don't know the road, I don't know if any other vehicles were involved in any way or what the lorry was overtaking at what speed or where the cyclists were immediately before and then during the incident whether they were on the road already or came on to the road during, or were crossing the road.

Do you think maybe we ought to find out exactly what happened before we send anyone to jail or is that just a bit old fashioned?

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

Unfortunately we know fine what will happen. The police will find some version of the truth, the CPS will go for a minimal charge, and the judge will let him off with a mildly tapped wrist.

Surely better would be to recognise that driving is a privilege, and say that if you kill someone with a motor vehicle then, unless you can unequivocally prove your lack of fault you lose that privilege; then deal with the issue of punishment separately.

I couldn't agree more. I believe that the enforcement of driving standards is lax, that the CPS and the police don't take dangerous driving seriously enough, that the CPS often pursues the easier charge of of Careless when they should be pursuing a dangerous charge, that the sentences are way too low and that much extended driving bans are necessary.